Is Rock Dead?

[J2112YYZ]

Good new rock bands shouldn't have to be "starving artists". I know that so many people love to romanticize that, but to me...It's just sad. All of these new rock bands deserve success and it breaks my heart that no matter what I do or what their fans do, it'll never happen because the world isn't what it used to be back in the 1980s and 90s.

 

These bands on the underground love what they do and have intense and beautiful bonds with their fans and tour well.

 

You don't even like any modern bands, you won't get off your backside and search for good bands you can support. You don't even know how much music had been evolving in the world of rock and metal away from the mainstream. I bet you don't even realise the depth and variety of great bands away from the US scene thriving elsewhere, from other countries.

 

I bet you don't realise the number of smaller bands such as Lacuna Coil (just for a start) who have been so popular in spite of no big hits they have played on practically every continent and lived every minute of it.

 

I bet you aren't even aware that your love for Evanescence is in ignorance of an entire twenty-plus year musical advancement in Europe where female vocalists have been on the rise in metal and rock, creating a style that was nonexistent during your favourite hair metal era.

 

An exciting new wave of prog-metal evolved from the eighties and flourished in the nineties and early 2000's, and the last few years bands have been emerging such as Riverside, Haken, and Mastodon that have really thrilled fans who care more about the music and the thrills they get from the powerful feeling of being a part of a small community than having to cry that their favourite bands aren't superstars.

 

You praise hair metal, but you choose to deride pretty much every other genre that has arisen since 1989, implying music is dying or is dead and citing the lack of high chart placements and the non-existence of superstars.

 

But whereas the eighties had rock n roll giants,the present has an army of ants. Small, thriving and spreading everywhere under the surface. All different kinds. Plenty of choice. Plenty of hard work. It's amazing and it's beautiful and it's confusing, and you are not a part of it.

 

And you don't even know just how ignorant you are of the world of rock n roll.

 

Just like you slate Rush albums you have never heard, you disregard the joys of the modern world without having a single glance, because you want to hear just one style that is gone for a reason.

 

And you forever cite mainstream bands. You are clueless to the abundance of great, genre pushing bands that have had a HUGE impact beneath the surface.

 

You are so damn self righteous and contradictory and ignorant of a world you claim to know so much about it is getting ridiculous how much we have to spend reading your thoughts in every avenue of conversation this forum provides.

 

Music hasn't died. Rock isn't dead. Rock isn't dying. It's currently not where YOU want it to be. But you don't even know enough about the sounds on offer in the rock scene today to even know 100% that the genre is on its last legs.

 

You are so ignorant and hateful and negative and increasingly desperate to push others love of today's music down, and you do it in such an in your face and hard-faced and near offensive way (not just in the main part of the forum, in the never-ending chats as well) it's actually becoming increasingly dour and almost hurtful (such a dramatic word, I am grasping for the right word like you are facts), it's driving many of us mad.

 

Chill boy, chill and smile once in a while.

 

You make a lot of really good points in this post about the existence of good modern bands. But the one thing that I really can not, in good faith agree with (in not just your post, but every post responding to me) is the implication that these new bands are better off being small, relatively unknown bands outside their respective fan-bases. Don't you think that groups like Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, and Alter Bridge who are incredibly talented, deserve to be successful? Don't you think that they shouldn't have to struggle to make it? Don't you think they should have as much of a chance as any EDM artist, or pop country star?

 

I don't know about you, but I think they deserve that chance.

 

Lacuna Coil, Nightwish and Alter Bridge are plenty successful. Yeah, they don't sell out the big arenas in North America but the bands certainly aren't starving either. There is something special about seeing a band play a smaller venue as opposed to the big ones. You get the real die hard fans who love them to show up and you don't have to worry about all the casuals you don't know shit being there.

 

You need to get this idea of rock bands are only successful if they're playing arenas and getting heavy rotation on the radio out of your head. Things aren't like that anymore. You're younger, so I don't see why this would be so hard to get?

[Segue Myles]

Good new rock bands shouldn't have to be "starving artists". I know that so many people love to romanticize that, but to me...It's just sad. All of these new rock bands deserve success and it breaks my heart that no matter what I do or what their fans do, it'll never happen because the world isn't what it used to be back in the 1980s and 90s.

 

These bands on the underground love what they do and have intense and beautiful bonds with their fans and tour well.

 

You don't even like any modern bands, you won't get off your backside and search for good bands you can support. You don't even know how much music had been evolving in the world of rock and metal away from the mainstream. I bet you don't even realise the depth and variety of great bands away from the US scene thriving elsewhere, from other countries.

 

I bet you don't realise the number of smaller bands such as Lacuna Coil (just for a start) who have been so popular in spite of no big hits they have played on practically every continent and lived every minute of it.

 

I bet you aren't even aware that your love for Evanescence is in ignorance of an entire twenty-plus year musical advancement in Europe where female vocalists have been on the rise in metal and rock, creating a style that was nonexistent during your favourite hair metal era.

 

An exciting new wave of prog-metal evolved from the eighties and flourished in the nineties and early 2000's, and the last few years bands have been emerging such as Riverside, Haken, and Mastodon that have really thrilled fans who care more about the music and the thrills they get from the powerful feeling of being a part of a small community than having to cry that their favourite bands aren't superstars.

 

You praise hair metal, but you choose to deride pretty much every other genre that has arisen since 1989, implying music is dying or is dead and citing the lack of high chart placements and the non-existence of superstars.

 

But whereas the eighties had rock n roll giants,the present has an army of ants. Small, thriving and spreading everywhere under the surface. All different kinds. Plenty of choice. Plenty of hard work. It's amazing and it's beautiful and it's confusing, and you are not a part of it.

 

And you don't even know just how ignorant you are of the world of rock n roll.

 

Just like you slate Rush albums you have never heard, you disregard the joys of the modern world without having a single glance, because you want to hear just one style that is gone for a reason.

 

And you forever cite mainstream bands. You are clueless to the abundance of great, genre pushing bands that have had a HUGE impact beneath the surface.

 

You are so damn self righteous and contradictory and ignorant of a world you claim to know so much about it is getting ridiculous how much we have to spend reading your thoughts in every avenue of conversation this forum provides.

 

Music hasn't died. Rock isn't dead. Rock isn't dying. It's currently not where YOU want it to be. But you don't even know enough about the sounds on offer in the rock scene today to even know 100% that the genre is on its last legs.

 

You are so ignorant and hateful and negative and increasingly desperate to push others love of today's music down, and you do it in such an in your face and hard-faced and near offensive way (not just in the main part of the forum, in the never-ending chats as well) it's actually becoming increasingly dour and almost hurtful (such a dramatic word, I am grasping for the right word like you are facts), it's driving many of us mad.

 

Chill boy, chill and smile once in a while.

 

You make a lot of really good points in this post about the existence of good modern bands. But the one thing that I really can not, in good faith agree with (in not just your post, but every post responding to me) is the implication that these new bands are better off being small, relatively unknown bands outside their respective fan-bases. Don't you think that groups like Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, and Alter Bridge who are incredibly talented, deserve to be successful? Don't you think that they shouldn't have to struggle to make it? Don't you think they should have as much of a chance as any EDM artist, or pop country star?

 

I don't know about you, but I think they deserve that chance.

 

I would love all these bands to be huge. It would be great!

 

But at the same time, pop music has its place. Not everyone enjoys music the same as we would like. Some live a good catchy pop song.

 

EDM has a lot of amazing artists. Trip hop in the 90's was basically a new art form that to this day still sounds fantastic.

 

Country is more than music it is a lifestyle. Country music will never die. It also lead to a lot of amazing crossover music into the realms of rock.

 

You cannot knock other styles of music because the world has always been big enough to accommodate every persons unique taste.

 

And there may come a time when the likes of Rihanna, Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and other artists lose favour and a harder form of music is on the rise.

 

But you overlook that, in spite of the fact rock is not ruling the world the way perhaps we rock fans would like, it is still alive and well beneath the mainstream, and who knows what the future holds?

 

You highly praise hair metal Fraroc, but you ignore the fact that there were desperate millions of rock and metal fans who had to persevere the radio rock of the eighties, only to embrace the changes in the early 90's. Music always has areas which become stale. Always. That's why music evolves. Not always how we like, but change is needed, and as society moves forward, so does the culture and the art that comes from it.

 

Today's music is a reflection of a difficult, confused time. But at the same time, those looking for musical stability have plenty of ways to access and discover new artists.

 

You want rock to go back to being what it was during the era you love. But you again ignore that there were critics of hair metal back in the day who bemoaned the coldness, the fakery and the shallowness of bands like Styx, Cinderella, Bon Jovi (not saying they are, they just have been labelled that way) and it was the exception, not the norm, for mainstream rock to come with crossover appeal with fans in the underground.

 

Music is not just about what we want. It about what everybody wants. And if you look hard enough you may find you love an awful lot that goes on beneath the mainstream.

 

It may take you a while to adjust to new sounds, but with patience and care I am sure you will find artists you enjoy.

 

And personally, as a music fan, I find artists such as Rihanna and Taylor Swift a darn side more enjoyable than the average rock fan cares to admit.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Segue Myles

[Segue Myles]

Good new rock bands shouldn't have to be "starving artists". I know that so many people love to romanticize that, but to me...It's just sad. All of these new rock bands deserve success and it breaks my heart that no matter what I do or what their fans do, it'll never happen because the world isn't what it used to be back in the 1980s and 90s.

 

These bands on the underground love what they do and have intense and beautiful bonds with their fans and tour well.

 

You don't even like any modern bands, you won't get off your backside and search for good bands you can support. You don't even know how much music had been evolving in the world of rock and metal away from the mainstream. I bet you don't even realise the depth and variety of great bands away from the US scene thriving elsewhere, from other countries.

 

I bet you don't realise the number of smaller bands such as Lacuna Coil (just for a start) who have been so popular in spite of no big hits they have played on practically every continent and lived every minute of it.

 

I bet you aren't even aware that your love for Evanescence is in ignorance of an entire twenty-plus year musical advancement in Europe where female vocalists have been on the rise in metal and rock, creating a style that was nonexistent during your favourite hair metal era.

 

An exciting new wave of prog-metal evolved from the eighties and flourished in the nineties and early 2000's, and the last few years bands have been emerging such as Riverside, Haken, and Mastodon that have really thrilled fans who care more about the music and the thrills they get from the powerful feeling of being a part of a small community than having to cry that their favourite bands aren't superstars.

 

You praise hair metal, but you choose to deride pretty much every other genre that has arisen since 1989, implying music is dying or is dead and citing the lack of high chart placements and the non-existence of superstars.

 

But whereas the eighties had rock n roll giants,the present has an army of ants. Small, thriving and spreading everywhere under the surface. All different kinds. Plenty of choice. Plenty of hard work. It's amazing and it's beautiful and it's confusing, and you are not a part of it.

 

And you don't even know just how ignorant you are of the world of rock n roll.

 

Just like you slate Rush albums you have never heard, you disregard the joys of the modern world without having a single glance, because you want to hear just one style that is gone for a reason.

 

And you forever cite mainstream bands. You are clueless to the abundance of great, genre pushing bands that have had a HUGE impact beneath the surface.

 

You are so damn self righteous and contradictory and ignorant of a world you claim to know so much about it is getting ridiculous how much we have to spend reading your thoughts in every avenue of conversation this forum provides.

 

Music hasn't died. Rock isn't dead. Rock isn't dying. It's currently not where YOU want it to be. But you don't even know enough about the sounds on offer in the rock scene today to even know 100% that the genre is on its last legs.

 

You are so ignorant and hateful and negative and increasingly desperate to push others love of today's music down, and you do it in such an in your face and hard-faced and near offensive way (not just in the main part of the forum, in the never-ending chats as well) it's actually becoming increasingly dour and almost hurtful (such a dramatic word, I am grasping for the right word like you are facts), it's driving many of us mad.

 

Chill boy, chill and smile once in a while.

 

You make a lot of really good points in this post about the existence of good modern bands. But the one thing that I really can not, in good faith agree with (in not just your post, but every post responding to me) is the implication that these new bands are better off being small, relatively unknown bands outside their respective fan-bases. Don't you think that groups like Lacuna Coil, Nightwish, and Alter Bridge who are incredibly talented, deserve to be successful? Don't you think that they shouldn't have to struggle to make it? Don't you think they should have as much of a chance as any EDM artist, or pop country star?

 

I don't know about you, but I think they deserve that chance.

 

Lacuna Coil, Nightwish and Alter Bridge are plenty successful. Yeah, they don't sell out the big arenas in North America but the bands certainly aren't starving either. There is something special about seeing a band play a smaller venue as opposed to the big ones. You get the real die hard fans who love them to show up and you don't have to worry about all the casuals you don't know shit being there.

 

You need to get this idea of rock bands are only successful if they're playing arenas and getting heavy rotation on the radio out of your head. Things aren't like that anymore. You're younger, so I don't see why this would be so hard to get?

 

Seeing Lacuna Coil in a small venue was amazing...whilst she sang Cristina held my hand from the stage and was also able to greet fans almost like old friends.

 

Nightwish play amazing gigs, big or small. They have inconsistent popularity around the world so they are masters of the small gig and the huge arena concerts.

 

Alter Bridge are not quite mainstream, but play awesome gigs the world over.

 

But I love these bands. And many more. The world is full of music, to cry one style is dying out is ignorant. It just changed with the times, something will change one day. But it won't die.

[HemiBeers]

Rock is kind of tapped out IMO. Sure there's newer bands taking somewhat different approaches. But many of them are highly derivative of other bands. Unfortunately many newer acts don't have the long-term drive and perspective of bands of the past. Long-term these days are just your next album. Are there any newer bands in the past 10 years that will still be around in another 10 years? If Rush came out within the past 5 years, they wouldn't have made it past 3 albums.

 

As distasteful as mixing money, popularity and 'art' together, it's an uncomfortable necessity for long term survival and influence. You need at least a respectable amount of 'popularity' to really have influence. I'm sure there's plenty of awesome musicians that are doing new and exciting things. But if they're just playing bars in front of 30 people, then there's no influence. Before I get flamed, what I'm simply trying to say that to have influence you have to be revolutionary but also accessable to a reasonably substantial fanbase.

[Segue Myles]

Rock is kind of tapped out IMO. Sure there's newer bands taking somewhat different approaches. But many of them are highly derivative of other bands. Unfortunately many newer acts don't have the long-term drive and perspective of bands of the past. Long-term these days are just your next album. Are there any newer bands in the past 10 years that will still be around in another 10 years? If Rush came out within the past 5 years, they wouldn't have made it past 3 albums.

 

As distasteful as mixing money, popularity and 'art' together, it's an uncomfortable necessity for long term survival and influence. You need at least a respectable amount of 'popularity' to really have influence. I'm sure there's plenty of awesome musicians that are doing new and exciting things. But if they're just playing bars in front of 30 people, then there's no influence. Before I get flamed, what I'm simply trying to say that to have influence you have to be revolutionary but also accessable to a reasonably substantial fanbase.

 

I see what you mean.

 

But there plenty of bands making complex music and lasting album after album:

 

Riverside

Haken

Thrice

The Bronx

Spock's Beard

 

And plenty of even more obscure bands with solid fanbases.

 

Plenty of bands leave their huge influences on others:

 

Sunny Day Real Estate and Texas Is The Reason were not successful...the impact the left led to the evolving sound of emo that exploded in the early to mid 00's.

 

Neurosis led to Isis and plenty of post-metal bands.

 

Thrice took post hardcore and incorporated electronic and folk/country influences into their sound and helped push the post hardcore movement into fresher territory. Not mainstream, but an entire scene was inspired by them, and the various bands made a huge impression on the underground, with some bands mildly hitting the mainstream.

 

Whole "scenes" have emerged that in a way represent what a single band might have in the past. Rock fans today cling less to one band like in the past and embrace plenty of bands.

 

The love is their it's just different now...the huge success stories are more in the form of a musical "movement" than any singular band.

[Rick N. Backer]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

[ReRushed]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

[Digital Dad]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

[ReRushed]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

Sure. Every genre or era has its crap. But there were a ton of great bands in the 1990s.

[Rick N. Backer]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

[fraroc]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

Hair metal in actual reality (not your reality) was probably better than the shit that the grunge movement spewed out.

 

Sure, you might make fun of the fact that most 80s guitarists were EVH knockoffs, but do you honestly believe that it's EASY to play that way? As opposed to just simple chord progressions and that's it? You see, that's what I don't get about hair metal haters, you claim that hair bands have no talent, yet swear that guitarists that have not and probably can not play lead whatsoever are better than say Steve Vai or Michael Angelo Batio?

Edited March 27, 2016 by fraroc

[Digital Dad]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

Hair metal in actual reality (not your reality) was probably better than the shit that the grunge movement spewed out.

 

I was in high school back then. It was very much my reality.

[Union 5-3992]

It's hard to play, therefore it's good...

[Union 5-3992]

Is any genre/band objectively good?

[fraroc]

Is any genre/band objectively good?

 

Complex solos, arpeggios and unusual chord progressions or simple chords with no lead parts? Do the math.

[Union 5-3992]

Is any genre/band objectively good?

 

Complex solos, arpeggios and unusual chord progressions or simple chords with no lead parts? Do the math.

That means absolutely nothing. Look at the song Hurt by Johnny Cash/Nine In Nails, it's literally considered one of the best songs for people that just picked up a guitar, it's basic entry level, and people love it. They aren't objectively good by any means but I'd even pick Hurt over a song like Cemetary Gates or something

Edited March 27, 2016 by Union 5-3992

[HemiBeers]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

Edited March 27, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet

[PolarizeMe]

Complex solos, arpeggios and unusual chord progressions or simple chords with no lead parts? Do the math.

So any subgenre of rock that doesn't have any or all of those suck? Then by your logic we all must have shit taste if all of us here collectively enjoy music from the subgenres punk, post-rock/metal, goth rock/metal, doom metal, krautrock, stoner rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, grindcore, industrial rock/metal, folk rock/metal etc which for the most part don't subscribe to that kind musicality! SMFH!!!!!!!!!! :eyeroll:

[Rick N. Backer]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Although I yield to no one in my love of EVH, who plays that style anymore? Bands like Wolfmother or The White Stripes are more Nirvana than Hendrix to my ears, and I love Hendrix too. I was in my 20s when Nevermind came out. I wasn't a kid, but I remember it vividly. Suddenly, the VH clones were unemployed, and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, et al, were everywhere.

 

The psychedelic movement died after a couple years, too. But the Stones released a Sgt. Pepper rip off, because for a time that type of music was huge. Rock reinvents itself over and over. The fact that no new "thrash" bands are out there doesn't mean it didn't have its moment in the sun.

 

It's natural to have bands you grew up with stay your favorites. That doesn't mean anyone who follows them can't be influential.

[HemiBeers]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Although I yield to no one in my love of EVH, who plays that style anymore? Bands like Wolfmother or The White Stripes are more Nirvana than Hendrix to my ears, and I love Hendrix too. I was in my 20s when Nevermind came out. I wasn't a kid, but I remember it vividly. Suddenly, the VH clones were unemployed, and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, et al, were everywhere.

 

The psychedelic movement died after a couple years, too. But the Stones released a Sgt. Pepper rip off, because for a time that type of music was huge. Rock reinvents itself over and over. The fact that no new "thrash" bands are out there doesn't mean it didn't have its moment in the sun.

 

It's natural to have bands you grew up with stay your favorites. That doesn't mean anyone who follows them can't be influential.

I don't see any connection that Soundgarden, Pearl Jam or STP have to Nirvana other than they came out at the same time and got lumped into the 'grunge' label. They still existed long after by having their own sound...or in the case of STP, just ripping off Pearl Jam but I digress. Even Foo Fighters when into a more straight-forward rock and non-grunge direction because Grohl knew that the Nirvana sound was outdated.

 

If anything, I think The Pixies were more influential on grunge and more musically interesting that Nirvana. Even Cobain was quoted that they were heavily influenced by them.

 

Alice in Chains is still pretty grunge-ish, but I still don't think their sound is Nirvana influenced. So Nirvana's influence...pretty short-lived and minimal IMO.

Edited March 27, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet

[fraroc]

Complex solos, arpeggios and unusual chord progressions or simple chords with no lead parts? Do the math.

So any subgenre of rock that doesn't have any or all of those suck? Then by your logic we all must have shit taste if all of us here collectively enjoy music from the subgenres punk, post-rock/metal, goth rock/metal, doom metal, krautrock, stoner rock/metal, alternative rock/metal, grindcore, industrial rock/metal, folk rock/metal etc which for the most part don't subscribe to that kind musicality! SMFH!!!!!!!!!! :eyeroll:

 

I wasn't necessarily trying to argue what was better (as in grunge vs hair metal) rather I was trying to discredit those who say that hair metal musicians have no talent compared to grunge musicians.

[Rick N. Backer]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Although I yield to no one in my love of EVH, who plays that style anymore? Bands like Wolfmother or The White Stripes are more Nirvana than Hendrix to my ears, and I love Hendrix too. I was in my 20s when Nevermind came out. I wasn't a kid, but I remember it vividly. Suddenly, the VH clones were unemployed, and Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots, et al, were everywhere.

 

The psychedelic movement died after a couple years, too. But the Stones released a Sgt. Pepper rip off, because for a time that type of music was huge. Rock reinvents itself over and over. The fact that no new "thrash" bands are out there doesn't mean it didn't have its moment in the sun.

 

It's natural to have bands you grew up with stay your favorites. That doesn't mean anyone who follows them can't be influential.

I don't see any connection that Soundgarden, Pearl Jam or STP have to Nirvana other than they came out at the same time and got lumped into the 'grunge' label. They still existed long after by having their own sound...or in the case of STP, just ripping off Pearl Jam but I digress. Even Foo Fighters when into a more straight-forward rock and non-grunge direction because Grohl knew that the Nirvana sound was outdated.

 

If anything, I think The Pixies were more influential on grunge and more musically interesting that Nirvana. Even Cobain was quoted that they were heavily influenced by them.

 

Alice in Chains is still pretty grunge-ish, but I still don't think their sound is Nirvana influenced. So Nirvana's influence...pretty short-lived and minimal IMO.

 

But to your point, how many bands today sound like Van Halen? Grunge was a departure from the glam/hair metal sound and image. How many new bands do you see with Aqua Net hair and spandex outfits, with a lead guitarist tapping through a solo? How many people can even name a Pixies' song? I really don't think you can say they were influential and Nirvana wasn't.

 

If you're not a fan of Nirvana, that's perfectly OK. But I think you're wrong if you think STP, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam didn't get recognized because Nervermind made record labels scramble to promote a certain type of band.

[Segue Myles]

And, I'll add that Nirvana had more cultural influence than any group mentioned except The Beatles.

Nirvana had no more influence than the Sex Pistols. That being a short-lived blip on the radar. To put Nirvana's influence above Hendrix, Van Halen, Ramones etc. is incorrect.

 

I appreciate Nirvana and their material, but cmon man.

 

Nirvana had more influence on the music of their time than Hendrix and the Ramones. By a lot. Van Halen is basically the prototype for the hair bands, so we're in agreement there.

 

Ask some of the hair metal icons of the late 80s what Nirvana meant to their personal wealth.

I was there. Nirvana was a musical tsunami. They wiped the slate clean and rock music was energized. Everything was different after Nirvana. A band among a very few.

 

Yeah but what spawned could be just as bad as some of the hair metal crap.

 

That isn't the point, though. I love Hendrix. I'm not a big fan of the Ramones, but I acknowledge their influence. However, neither of them came close to changing the music scene the way Nirvana's Nevermind did.

The influence of Nirvana might have been greater on you because you were young at the time and that's what hit you. Nothing wrong about that. But grunge died in the mid 90s. Where is Nirvana's influence today? Ziltch. Any significant bands playing grunge? Nada. There's no significant bands playing punk ala The Sex Pistols which is why I put them in the 'flash in the pan' bucket along with Nirvana. Grunge and the alt scene in the early 90s was an interesting 3-4 years, but we've moved on long ago.

 

Hendrix and Van Halen changed how guitarists played long after their time and continue to do so. Their influence is much greater than Nirvana. From a musician's perspective, there really wasn't anything significantly different that Nirvana did. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a rip off of Boston's More Than a Feeling. Cobain was a very simplistic guitar player. For supposedly being 'revolutionary' and different, Cobain turned out to have a very cliche rock and roll existence.

 

Back to the thread title at hand...If we're questioning whether Rock is dead then Nirvana's influence must not have been that great. I approach this from looking at the originality of their music and not idol worship.

 

Wow...Nirvana shirts are still common, merchandise sells well, grunge has diluted itself into plenty of pop rock bands who have smoothed out the edges, you see articles about them in magazines frequently because the legend of Kurt is still a powerful hold on many...

 

You are so seriously trying to deny their existence and impact it's hilarious. I don't know any young rock fans who don't at least have a handful of favourite Nirvana songs.

[djflex]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

[HemiBeers]

I always liked alice in chains and soundgarden way more than nirvana. My guess is no one cares but i said it anyways

It's more about chops to me than dead idol worship, which I think is alot of Cobain's appeal. Let's be honest, Nirvana were the anti-chops band that made loud and shitty sounding cool. It's no coincidence that the gangsta rap phase happened about the same time. The industry needed it at that point. But at the end of the day, there's not much musically adventurous or interesting about Nirvana. Edited March 27, 2016 by 2112FirstStreet